Just a Toy: Pixar’s Failure of Imagination

In 1995, with the release of the first fully computer-generated feature film, Pixar took the first steps into the virgin territory of a new medium. However, they have not made the most of these advances. Pixar’s films, regardless of the writer or director, have always had a big idea: a rat chef, a flying house, living toys—but they rarely go beyond that one idea. While Studio Ghibli, their Japanese hand-drawn friends, show the magical in the everyday and mine joy from the details of life, Pixar routinely make less from more and reduce their grand fantastical concepts to the mundane.

When the balloons rose majestically to free Carl’s house from its foundations in Up, I couldn’t wait to see what bewitching sights from our world I would be treated to. I expected an exciting and profound journey both outward and inward. Instead, I got a big bird and talking dogs. This is bankruptcy of imagination.

Do we see anything in Pixar that makes us see the world afresh and marvel at its beauty? In a Ghibli film something as simple as a lamp being turned on, transforming a space with color and shadow, can be breathtaking. In addition, Pixar’s stories go nowhere. The characters, often needy or damaged, don’t progress. They are not challenged to become stronger or better people as in the greatest children’s novels but instead discover, via banal life lessons, that they were fine all along. And so it is as if we are returned to a dramatic zero point, two hours before, standing in the queue looking forward to the latest candy-colored sensation.

Pixar’s characters are pawns not people. In Up, how contrived does Russell’s broken background seem? How artificial and insincere is the tragic veneer applied to the opening montage of a life led in near-perfect happiness? This is transparently manipulative storytelling and it is hard to relate to.

Pixar’s weak depiction of people is well illuminated by their anthropomorphism of inanimate objects. It is telling what traits they inject into these things to make them ’human’. See how the cars in Cars are obnoxious and goofy and fart out of their exhaust.

Pixar’s writers paint with a limited emotional palette too. Things are HAPPY or they are SAD. Also, there is a reliance on marquee ’emotional moments’ that teach us how to feel in the studio’s films. Think of Jesse in Toy Story 2 staring out of the window as she remembers her former owner. The moment briefly echoes with meaning—the mutable relationships between children and parents, growing up, the pain of rejection. Yet the message must be hammered home. And so, over this delicate concoction is poured a sickly syrup of a silly pop song and a maudlin flashback.

Like so much of modern day cinema, emotion is perceived to be something added rather than ever-present. Instead of sentiment there is sentimentality. It is like the difference between feeling scared and being startled. In Kiki’s Delivery Service, Whisper of the Heart and especially Spirited Away, the growth of young people into independence, maturity and love are given the respect and the subtlety they deserve, far beyond the formulaic binary of their American counterparts.

Maybe all of this comes down to the limits of computer-generated animation. Pixar can animate the thousands of hairs on Sully’s back in Monsters, Inc., but they cannot animate a person’s soul on hard, plasticized faces. They miss the literal human touch of the artist’s pen.

This raises the question of what the purpose of animation is, or what Pixar believe it to be. There is much talk from critics of the realism in their designs, and yet, nothing feels real. If you want something to look completely real, don’t animate it.

Furthermore, there is a mean-spirited and simple-minded good/evil dichotomy at work in Pixar’s films. Given that these types of film appeal most to children, this bothers me. Why must Muntz fall from the zeppelin to his death in Up? Is it what he deserves? Or is it, in some convoluted morality, proof of his badness? Why are the housing developers so faceless and robotic? Why are the humans in Wall-E such fat, babyish oafs?

Compare this to the big-hearted treatment of the Witch of the Waste in Howl’s Moving Castle, who, having lost her powers, is not punished or humiliated but welcomed into the castle as a member of the ’good’ characters’ family. Even if humans are reproached for their bad acts towards the natural world in Princess Mononoke, it is in the light of their capacity for even greater good.

In the end, Pixar’s output comes close to fulfilling the view of Hollywood cinema still held in much of the world: predictable, disposable and dumb.

Stephen Russell-Gebbett is a budding short story writer and translator. His film discussion blog, Checking on My Sausages, will become more productive in the near future, he promises.

Pixar Week will run October 4—10 at the House. For more information on the event, please see here.

Slant is reaching more readers than ever before, but advertising revenue across the Internet is falling fast, hitting independently owned and operated publications like ours the hardest. We’ve watched many of our fellow media sites fall by the way side in recent years, but we’re determined to stick around.

We’ve never asked our readers for financial support before, and we’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees. If you like what we do, however, please consider becoming a Slant patron.

I';m not one to think Pixar is perfect, you just haven';t done much to convince me here. I do think there';s room for criticism and I think Pixar gets a bit of free ride from critics these days, but I also don';t find the comparison to Miyazaki works all that well.

Just because the films are animated doesn';t instantly make them comparable. It';s like comparing the films of Akira Kurosawa and Steven Spielberg because they are all shot on film. There are base similarities, but important differences that should be considered, not the least of which are cultural.

This becomes even more critical when talking about animation because the Japanese view anime and manga as a cultural art form on a par with cinema, TV, and literature. Americans do not, so the entire marketplace for animation is radically different, and that changes the whole equation when you';re making animated films that cost far more than a typical Hollywood feature film production and take years to complete.Posted by Joel E on 2009-10-07 23:01:49

@Luke:

"The heroes are figures born into privileged positions tasked with destroying a ';villain'; whose crime is democratizing, via technology, the powers that they once had a monopoly on."

That';s an amazing take. The villain creates powers for himself and other technology which he sells as military weapons. He';s an arms dealer, not some egalitarian. He does this not to "democratize" superpowers but to make himself powerful and to fuel his broken ego. He simply wants to rule the world.

He then unleashes a weapon of mass destruction on a heavily populated city, one that only he can defeat because he has captured and imprisoned the entire family, including their children. Let';s not forget the part where he tortures Dad.

Then the villain loses control of said WMD, which goes on a rampage, only to be saved by the family he hated so much because he envies their powers.

Oh, and the movie ends with the villain trying to kidnap their child, for some nefarious purpose we';re not certain of. Luckily, the kid is able to fight back and the family is reunited safely in the end.

So yeah, your reading of the film sure is illuminating.Posted by Joel E on 2009-10-07 22:36:59

Joseph: "3d films are a medium and your problems with pixar are residing at the script level rather than any level of animation"

How can the style of animation not have a bearing on how the script is written (seeing as the writer knows that they are writing for that style of animation with its particular characteristics) and then communicated? All these elements are interlinked. Film is not a triptych of a theatre play, a painting and an orchestral work, prepared and received as discrete entities.

"To sweep anything great about pizar just because they';re not at telling tales of female empowerment or use villains in their story"

I didn';t say anything about female empowerment and it was the depiction / attitude towards villains that bothered me._Anonymous: "The Incredibles and Ratatouille undermine all the points you make"

Maybe there is character development and story depth in them somewhere but I couldn';t even get past the first half hour of either to find out - consider my review a critique of all of Pixar';s work bar the last hours of The Incredibles and Ratatouille._Harvey: "A sidebar: Russell';s background was contrived? He';s a child of a single mother with an uninvolved father. That';s dirt-common, not contrived"

That';s precisely why it';s contrived - because it is so common and yet is treated in the film as if it is something special and extraordinary: it is this treatment that is contrived (see Carl';s overly shocked, sad expression at the news)

"This isn';t accurate. Take a handful of Pixar movies and see what changed for the protagonists"

Maybe so but these arcs take the path of least dramatic resistance, conforming to what the viewer is most likely to anticipate. _Joel E: "I thought the couple';s repeatedly complicated struggle to save money for their dreams, yearning for a child yet unable to have one, and the tragic loss of one';s best friend and life companion to be pretty true to life and pretty typical of many couple';s experience. How exactly is that "near-perfect" happiness, to be denied one';s ultimate dream of a complete family or be denied growing old with your one true love? And how is that manipulative and hard to relate to? It seems almost inhuman not to be able to relate to some if not all aspects of that life story"

It all depends on what you constitute as happiness. He married his ';one true love'; and spent 60/70 years with her. That is a wonderful, incredible and rare thing. So they couldn';t have children, so they struggled with money.

We were invited, especially by the music, to see all this as sad just because of how it (inevitably) ended. I think that this was unwarranted.

My review attempts to make sense of a general impression. I fully expect there to be exceptions to the rule but don';t consider them to be deal-breakers.Posted by Stephen Russell-Gebbett on 2009-10-07 08:25:35

Yo, fuck this guy.Posted by Matthew Chester on 2009-10-07 05:42:57

While I';m sympathetic to your opinion - as a lover of animation, I kind of hate what Disney did aesthetically and culturally to the medium, and feel Pixar is just more Disney in CG drag - this piece really doesn';t read to me as very well thought-out. Opinions are related without clear example, and several gross generalizations are made.

I was kind of excited to read an intelligent tear-down of perhaps the most overrated animation studio in film history, but found myself quite disappointed.

However, as an aside to all the people trotting out The Incredibles as an unassailable Pixar film that destroys any of the writer';s opinions: The themes of that movie are Ciceronian, fascistic and culturally damaging, and I would seriously doubt letting my children watch it lest they turn into Randian Objectivists. The heroes are figures born into privileged positions tasked with destroying a ';villain'; whose crime is democratizing, via technology, the powers that they once had a monopoly on. "If everyone is special, then no one will be" is a dismal moral for a film ostensibly for children. Far from being the shining jewel in Pixar';s crown, I find it to be one of their most problematic films.Posted by Luke on 2009-10-07 02:36:38

You';re secretly Armond White, right?

"Pixar';s films, regardless of the writer or director, have always had a big idea: a rat chef, a flying house, living toys â€“ but they rarely go beyond that one idea."

This is acutely different from Miyazaki exactly how? He may envision a world separate from our own in many of his features, but that world often contains a main character or narrative element that is "the big idea" and then follows a basic character arc from beginning to end. Explain to me how a rat becoming a culinary genius and changing the lives of various characters isn';t a story, or how a man yearning for peace and going on a globe-trotting mission to fulfill his dead wife';s dreams and finding renewed commitment to living isn';t magical, or a group of toys struggling with their identity and mortality isn';t in and of itself "showing the magical in the everyday and mining joy from the details of life?"

"Pixar';s characters are pawns not people. In Up, how contrived does Russell';s broken background seem? How artificial and insincere is the tragic veneer applied to the opening montage of a life led in near-perfect happiness? This is transparently manipulative storytelling and it is hard to relate to."

I thought the couple';s repeatedly complicated struggle to save money for their dreams, yearning for a child yet unable to have one, and the tragic loss of one';s best friend and life companion to be pretty true to life and pretty typical of many couple';s experience. How exactly is that "near-perfect" happiness, to be denied one';s ultimate dream of a complete family or be denied growing old with your one true love? And how is that manipulative and hard to relate to? It seems almost inhuman not to be able to relate to some if not all aspects of that life story.

"Pixar';s weak depiction of people is well illuminated by their anthropomorphism of inanimate objects. It is telling what traits they inject into these things to make them ';human';. See how the cars in Cars are obnoxious and goofy and fart out of their exhaust."

Easy to take this shot at Cars, because it';s true that Cars is derivative and weak in this way, but please show me where this obnoxious and goofy behavior appears elsewhere in their films? And as for Miyazaki, you haven';t watched very closely if you haven';t noticed the goofy behavior of minor characters and entities in his films. Even his most recent, Ponyo, features a main character who "obnoxiously" spits water into the face of anyone she dislikes. Or is it cute and childlike because it';s Miyazaki and obnoxious because it';s Pixar?

In general, I';d have to agree that you';ve missed the character arcs of virtually every Pixar film and it';s telling that you have little to say about The Incredibles, Ratatouille, or even Wall-E.Posted by Joel E on 2009-10-06 20:00:40

That might be the first real jab I';ve seen from someone take at Pixar, whose been the sort of unquestioned king of the animated world here in the US. I';ve yet to see Up so I can';t commentate there, but it seems to me that with each film Pixar picks a certain goal. Something they want to be the convey in the random world they create, and that';s their only real goal. Sure it may not be on par in terms of creativity with the films of Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli, but I think they do an amazing job with what they intend to.Posted by Univarn on 2009-10-06 17:06:00

I';m no great defender of Pixar';s best-known work. Toy Story leaves me numb, and Cars? Ugh. So it';s telling, maybe, that there';s no mention of The Incredibles or Ratatouille in your essay--movies that, I';d argue, do challenge the protagonists, do expose their flaws, do compel them to become better people or (in the case of the former) die trying. Is Brad Bird, then, truly the outside agent in what Todd refers to as Pixar';s communal mind--injecting valid subversive elements into the corporate formula you find so stultifying?Posted by Jefferson Robbins on 2009-10-06 14:37:56

I have to object to one assertion: " In addition, Pixar';s stories go nowhere. The characters, often needy or damaged, don';t progress. They are not challenged to become stronger or better people as in the greatest children';s novels but instead discover, via banal life lessons, that they were fine all along. And so it is as if we are returned to a dramatic zero point, two hours before, standing in the queue looking forward to the latest candy-colored sensation."

This isn';t accurate. Take a handful of Pixar movies and see what changed for the protagonists.

Toy Story--Woody accepts the new addition to his family, and is okay with no longer being the clear top dog. He wrestled with jealousy and misadventure to get to that point. It wasn';t that he was "fine all along." In the beginning, he was petty and jealous--he just didn';t know it yet.

Finding Nemo--Marlin goes from doofy, clueless father-to-be to overprotective, suffocating father to a third state, where he took Nemo as an individual, rather than an extension of himself or a fragile being that must be protected from everything. Again, that';s not a circle.

Monsters, Inc.--Sulley, a dedicated company man who lives for his work, discovers that his work is cruel, his company is built on lies, and that family ties are worthwhile. In the end, he overthrows his entire world';s structure and establishes a new one.

There are lots of solid criticisms to be made of Pixar movies. (And Studio Ghibli movies, for that matter.) But the assertion quoted above isn';t correct.

A more valid criticism is that Pixar adheres to the Hollywood paradigm of story and structure, including those character arcs. It isn';t totally necessary for a protagonist to change and have a full character arc. It depends on the needs of the story.

Here';s a topic for consideration: the unbelievable larding of setups and callbacks in the movies. The first half of Up contains a laundry list of items that are all cited again in the second half. The list of setup-payoff items was absurdly large, especially for a movie of that brevity. I loved Up, but I couldn';t stop ticking off the setup-payoff list as I watched it.

A sidebar: Russell';s background was contrived? He';s a child of a single mother with an uninvolved father. That';s dirt-common, not contrived. He';s a Boy Scout looking to earn a merit badge? Eh, not too bad, and forgivable in a fantasy movie as a nod to reality. What';s the contrivance?Posted by Harvey Jerkwater on 2009-10-06 13:53:34

The Incredibles and Ratatouille undermine all the points you make.Posted by Anonymous on 2009-10-06 12:50:38

3d films are a medium and your problems with pixar are residing at the script level rather than any level of animation.

Pixar relies far more on charicature than Miyazaki, but so what? Wall-e was absolutely delightful, a tale where the animator forgotten items come to life.

Sure Pixar invests in some Disney-esque villains, but that';s not a reason to immediately discount the entire company. You need animated villains/marks to run the amazing Tex Avery style slapstick comedy that Pixar marries into it';s movies.

And to call Wall-e & Ratatouille mean spirited, I don';t get. Because Stanton';s creating a satire world of consumerism? It';s Satire.

Miyazaki is great yes (He';s my favorite filmmaker), but his tales of female empowerment through self-actualization are quite unique. Even his son, his long time producing partner, or anyone else in his studio, let alone Japan or the world don';t make his style of films with his specific obsessions. It';s like he';s leading a crusade against the repression of young women.

Pixar does amazing things with tone, and the themes and as different directors they have different themes and obsessions. The things that Pixar does with changing of tone (especially Brad Bird) is really quite impressive, and the rats in Ratatouille, just burst with character while staying rat-like and somewhat disgusting.

To sweep anything great about pizar just because they';re not at telling tales of female empowerment or use villains in their story. Or, perhaps their films aren';t as great as the films of Miyazaki, but as far as I';m concerned neither is anyone else.

To call Pixar "unimaginative" is to only look at the base level and to be unimaginative oneself.

And to light things in "good" is to fundamentally miss the point of Miyazaki, who turns away from such dichotomies at every possible moment.

There is an interesting point that Pixar';s most "Human" characters are never "Human" but there is something amazingly imaginative, for a companies films to consistently find humanity in Toys, Cars, Bugs, Trash Robots, Fish, and Rats. Especially in the case of the Robots and Rats, They don';t go anthropomorphizing them into a cute cuddly thing.

This article just feels like a troll on an internet board.Posted by Joseph on 2009-10-06 12:46:00